Truth Magazine

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

In grammar, a postfix (or suffix) is “a sound, syllable, or syllables added at the end of a word or word base to change its meaning, give it grammatical function, or form a new word” (Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language 1457).

It occurs to me that postfixing (to fix after) is what some are doing on account of their divorces. Often there is the account given at the time of the divorce and then a postfixed one given at the time of remarriage. The story is now fixed, after the fact, to include scriptural grounds for divorce. Why? Because the scriptural reason is now far more important than it was at the time of the divorce.

A person is in a difficult marriage. Things have gotten so bad that divorce seems to be the only way out. The person is so disgusted and hurt by this marriage that he or she just wants out. To find another mate? Never! He has had it with this marriage. He has had it with marriage – period. The quicker he can end this misery the better. So, he gets the divorce, using the easiest provable grounds he can find that the state will accept (which is almost any reason or no reason) to get the divorce over with. He is fed up with this intolerable situation.

Had the person’s spouse committed fornication? He says he (or she) really doesn’t matter – because he is going to get the divorce anyway. But, what if he should change his mind later and decide to remarry? He assures us that this is not going to happen. But it does!

Years ago, I was riding a bus to a meeting in Georgetown, Kentucky. A young lady with two small children boarded the bus at Louisville and took a seat directly behind me. Just outside of Louisville a man boarded and sat down just across the aisle from the young lady. She was in a talkative mood. She began telling the story of her life. She had just gotten a divorce and was on her way back to her parents. She was disgusted with men in general. If she could just make it to her parents, she would make it just fine, without ever looking at a man as long as she lived. This kind of talk went on for several minutes. Finally, the man across the aisle began talking with her. He did not have a wife and needed one. By the time we stopped in Frankfort the young lady had been talked into getting off the bus there with her new friend with the view of giving further consideration to their possible marriage. How quickly the mind changes.

While that young lady’s case may be an extreme example, it illustrates how easily minds are sometimes changed. We know of several cases where divorced people have adamantly affirmed that they would never want another spouse, but have changed their minds with the passing of time – some within a few weeks, some within a few months, and others within a few years. They meet the new love of their lives and would like for their new marriage to be scriptural and accepted by faithful brethren. So, now the “postfixing” begins.

Maybe they did have scriptural ground for divorce after all. So, they begin the quest for evidence by recalling things that happened before their divorce that seems now to point to the unfaithfulness of the ex-spouse. Why did they not bring these things up before? Could it be that they were so bent on getting out of the marriage they simply overlooked them? Or, could it be that they are now more concerned about the divorce being scriptural than they were at the time? Or, could it be that, with the passing of time and the increased desire to have the right to another spouse, the facts (?) that were fuzzy at the time have become clearer as the desire to remarry has become stronger? At any rate, they are not convinced that they did have scriptural grounds after all, but because of the pressure at the time of the divorce they did not use them. They can now marry their new love convinced that they are alright and that good brethren will accept the facts (?) as they are now being presented.

But alas, the Scripture still reads, “But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery” (Matt. 5:32, NKJV). “And I say to you whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another commits adultery” (Matt. 19:9 NKJV).

My friend, sexual immorality has to be the reason for the divorce – not an afterthought to justify another marriage.

The person who has “postfixed” his divorce story might or might not have found the scriptural reason for divorce had he or she investigated enough at the time. But he did not. He was only interested in getting out of an undesirable marriage. The fact is: he divorced his spouse for reason(s) other than fornication (sexual immorality). Whether or not the divorced partner was guilty of fornication at the time or prior to the divorce is not really germane to the question at this late date. The fact remains the spouse was not divorced for that reason. The spouse was divorced for a reason other than fornication. Fornication, among other things, may have even been suspected at the time – but it was not the reason for the divorce action.

It is dangerous to re-write a divorce story to fit the present need and desire for a scriptural marriage. Like necessity, desire is the mother of inventions. A desire to remarry that was not present at the time of divorce can easily cause one to rearrange the facts (?) to justify the present situation.

One may come to believe his revised version. The brethren may accept it. But, remember the Lord knows the real facts. He will not be mocked. His memory does not became fuzzy with time or biased by desire.

Again, if you are divorced and want to remarry, the only way that you can do it within the bounds of scriptural authority is for fornication (sexual immorality) to have been the reason (at the time) that you divorced your former spouse – assuming that the one you want to marry now has a scriptural right to marry.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 2, pp. 44-45
January 16, 1992

By Harry R. Osbourne

The following article by Wayne Jackson is reprinted from Christian Courier, a paper published by our liberal brethren, regarding some of the current teaching done by some of the most extreme preachers among them. As you read the article, ask yourself a few questions. Where did such apostasy begin? What approach is taken to defend such outrageous positions? How in the world have these teachers of error been tolerated to this point? Where will it all end? We will discuss some of these points more at the end of this article:

On October 17, 1989, San Francisco, California was jolted by a powerful earthquake. Two days later, on the campus of Lubbock Christian University, Randy Mayeux, who preaches for the Preston Road church in Dallas, delivered a radical, almost earthquake-like speech, the shocking effects of which are reverberating across our brotherhood months later.

The theme of Mayeux’s presentation, which was really a veneered tirade against the “traditional” church of Christ, was “unity in diversity.” He brazenly threw down the gauntlet to faithful gospel preachers everywhere.

In a series of sweeping charges, Mayeux alleged that although the churches of Christ claim that they have no creed but the Bible, they in fact do have one. He referred to a well-known tract, Can We All Understand the Bible Alike?, as an “ignorant” viewpoint, and charged that the Scriptures cannot be uniformly understood, which, of course, makes the apostolic charge that we “all speak the same thing” (1 Cor. 1:10) rather meaningless. Brother Mayeux equated the use of mechanical instruments of music in Christian worship with such expedients as the Sunday school and multiple communion cups. He suggested that the division which came about between the Christian Church and the churches of Christ in the late 1800’s was principally economic, i.e., some churches could afford the instrument and others could not, hence, a spirit of rivalry developed. Our brother is as uninformed in history as he is in biblical matters.

Our misguided friend is also quite confused as to what it takes to constitute a Christian. He affirms that he teaches that baptism is for remission of sins, but he confesses that his heart inclines otherwise. (I believe there is an appropriate word for one who believes one thing and teaches another.) He contends that there are many respectable men among us who do not believe that our view of baptism is correct. He argues that if persecution should come, we would meet for worship with believers of all sorts, and whether one had been sprinkled or immersed would hardly be significant. He says, in fact, his belief actually is that God will accept a person at the point of his or her understanding. Would that mean that the Lord would accept the Jew as he is, even though he does not “understand” that Jesus is the Messiah? Mayeux mentioned “Mother” Teresa, the Roman Catholic nun, whom he acknowledged has never been immersed for the forgiveness of her sins, and he wondered if a poll were taken, how many might feel that she is saved anyhow. There is an implication as to what his vote would be.

Brother Mayeux praises the writings and preaching of Charles Swindoll, a staunch Calvinist, and concedes that he has personal inclinations toward Calvinism. He avers that hundreds of our women in the church across the country are attending the organized “Bible Study Fellowship” programs which, he says, are “unabashed, unashamed Calvinist Bible studies.” And he exclaims, “It is wonderful!” He predicts that a growing number of our people are going to think like Calvinists because they are reading men like Swindoll, and because they are not getting good Bible instruction in the church. Those sitting under him certainly aren’t getting much!

Mayeux tells of a Herald of Truth family conference recently conducted in Texas during which a woman “preached” to 900 people, and, he exclaims, she “was dynamite! ” He asks: Is there no place in the church for women who want to preach publicly to both men and women? He declares that the church of the Lord will not survive in the 1990s unless we allow women to exercise their ministerial gifts. On and on he railed as the audience laughed at his glib sarcasm. Randy Mayeux concluded his infamous diatribe by asserting that in the 1990s, diversity will be the only game in town!

Meanwhile, in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex area, Larry James of the Richardson East congregation, has boldly blasted churches of Christ for their opposition to the use of instruments of music in worship. In a sermon delivered on February 26th of last year, James caustically attacked our position on worship innovations. He made no attempt, of course, to answer the major arguments employed to sustain our stand; rather, he chose simply to ridicule those who contend for the primitive pattern of worship.

The sermons of Mayeux and James reflect a typical revolutionary spirit that is becoming increasingly common in the church. I am convinced that many sincere Christians are not aware of the extent to which the restoration movement is drifting (actually, rushing) into digression. It is quite a shocking experience to hear these men so arrogantly proclaiming their unorthodox views, and to note their mounting popularity (Wayne Jackson, Christian Courier, February 1990, p. 39).

A generation has now past since the painful “split” over institutionalism which occurred in the 1950s. During those dark days, many faithful brethren warned their digressive brethren of the horrible consequences which would come if they gave up the appeal for Bible authority in all matters (1 Pet. 4:11; Col. 3:17; 2 Tim. 3:16-17). Those favoring efforts for which there was no Bible authority answered, “We do many things for which we have no authority.” The plea for all things to be authorized from God’s Word fell on deaf cars which called such thinking “picky,” “outdated,” and “narrow.” Those who demanded Bible authority for all that they practiced were labeled “anti’s” and quickly dismissed as some kind of crazy nuts. While the vast majority set out upon the path of the unauthorized, a few brethren sounded a warning about the end of that trail. They warned of a time these liberal attitudes would be applied even further than the digressives wanted. They warned of compromises extending to embrace instrumental music and denominational error. Even they, no doubt, would be surprised at the extent of the apostasy in such a short time.

I must confess that even though I keep track of the current papers among liberal brethren, I am shocked at the errors openly embraced by some of their prominent preachers. Randy Mayeux, named in the above article, was one of the speakers at the Nashville meeting I attended in November of 1988. He can hardly be dismissed as an obscure person with little influence since he preaches at one of the largest institutional churches in this country (Preston Road in Dallas, Texas). At that time of the Nashville meeting, he was making veiled references to his Calvinist leanings. Less than a year later, however, he made the speech documented above in which he openly admitted to teachings so loose a good Calvinist couldn’t even say, “Amen.” Ten years ago, who would have guessed that anyone among institutional brethren would declare that a Roman Catholic nun was saved in her present state? Those brethren in institutional churches who still have any doctrinal convictions for the truth need to wake up and leave such defenders of error to make a stand for God’s truth!

As if the above mentality were not enough of a problem among the liberal brethren, the article just before the one above detailed even more trouble among their ranks (Christian Courier, Feb. 1990, pp. 37-38). The author stated that a biology professor at “one of our major universities” called Genesis 1 a “myth.” The author went on to say that such is becoming common. The article also admitted that “theological liberalism” (the belief that the Bible, is not a product of Divine inspiration, but of human origin) is the guiding principle in dealing with the Bible for many institutional preachers. Bill Swetmon and others among those brethren have stated views which leave me in shock!

How did it all get started? It started with some who believed it was alright to do just a few things that were unauthorized by God. When those innovations were accepted, a few more were introduced. And so it progressed with one innovation followed by another until these brethren lost any concept of proving all things and holding fast that which is good (I Thess. 5:21). They have followed the downward spiral of apostasy plainly declared in God’s Word (2 Tim. 3:13; 3:5; Acts 20:29-30; 2 Thess. 2:10-12). The have sown the wind and they are reaping the whirlwind (Hos. 8:7). Let us always be vigilant against the very start of error. It must be seen for what it is – a deadly cancer which will spread through every part of the body until it destroys any semblance of life remaining (2 Tim. 2:16-18). Don’t be deceived – there is no harmless error!

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 2, pp. 48-49
January 16, 1992

By Thomas G. O’Neal

I appreciate the invitation of brother Mike Willis to participate in this special issue of Guardian of Truth. The confidence in me such an invitation expresses is very much appreciated.

Two terms are important to this article, faith and opinion. Consulting standard works like Strong’s and Young’s Concordance one learns that the word “opinion” is not used in the New Testament, thus, a need to go elsewhere for a definition. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (589) says ” 1. Belief stronger than impression, less strong than positive knowledge; a belief; view, judgment. 2. The judgment or sentiment which the mind forms of persons or things; estimation; sometimes, favorable estimation; esteem. . . ” According to Webster in terms of strength is (1) positive knowledge, (2) then opinion, and then (3) impression.

What “Opinion” Is Not

1. An approved example is not opinion. In Acts 11:27-30 we have the approved example of Antioch sending relief to the brethren in Judea, sending it to the elders. This is not someone’s opinion; the text says they sent it to the elders, not to a board of directors of a human organization.

2. A necessary inference is not opinion. In Matthew 3:16 “Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water.” Necessarily inferred in this is that Jesus went down into the water. This is not someone’s opinion; it is necessarily inferred from the text.

3. A command is not opinion. Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:16). This is not someone’s opinion; this is what Jesus said and what Mark records.

An opinion is a belief, even a strong one, that a person has of others or of things. It may be a correct opinion or it may be incorrect. If it is a correct opinion, it is founded on fact; if it is a correct religious opinion it is rooted in God’s word. If it is an incorrect opinion, it is founded on something beside fact; if it is an incorrect religious opinion, it is based upon something other than what God has said.

The Faith

1. The term “the faith” is used in the New Testament to mean God’s revelation to man, the revealed system of faith (Jude 3; Acts 6:7; 13:8; Rom. 1:5; 16:26; Gal. 1:23 and Phil. 1:27). It means the same thing as “the gospel.” For example, one could exchange “the faith” for “the gospel” in Mark 16:15 without doing violence to the passage. The two terms – faith and gospel -mean the same. When the term “the faith” is so used, it is an objective use of it.

2. The term “faith” is used in another way in the New Testament. This usage is not an objective use of it, meaning the gospel. In this second usage of it, the term indicates what one personally believes based upon their understanding of the faith of the gospel. Their personal faith may be correct or it may be incorrect.

Paul used it in the correct way in Romans 14 when he said “whatsoever is not of faith is sin” (v. 23). “Faith” in verse 23 means “let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind” (v. 5). It is with reference to this faith Paul said, “Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God” (v. 22). “Faith” is verse 22 is not doubting of verse 23. “Faith” in verse 22 is not the “faith once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). The faith once delivered was to be preached to all the world (Mk. 16:15; Gal. 1:23; Jude 3). The “faith” of Romans 14:22 was not to be preached but “have it to thyself before God.”

Brethren, we need to understand that our faith, our personal faith, which we are to have to ourselves before God is over a matter or matters either of which is acceptable to God. The meat eater and the herb eater of Romans 14 were both received by God (Rom. 14:3; 15:7). The man who esteemed one day above another and the brother who did not were both received by God (Rom. 14:5; 15:7).

The Faith – The Gospel

In the New Testament the terms faith and gospel are often used to mean the same thing. In Romans 1: 16-17 Paul said he was “not ashamed of the gospel of Christ” the reason being “therein” that is, in the gospel is “the righteousness of God revealed” from “faith” – the gospel – to “faith” within the heart.

This faith was not just somebody’s opinion. The apostles who revealed it claimed they were eyewitnesses (2 Pet. 1:16), they heard (2 Pet. 1:18; 1 Jn. 1:1), they handled (1 Jn. 1:1-4) that which they declared. What was delivered was received of the Lord (1 Cor. 15:23; 15:3; Gal. 1:11-12). When this faith was written, people who read could understand the message (Eph. 3:3-4) and understand the will of God (Eph. 5:17). More knowledge or understanding is not what is needed by brethren on this subject, but more faith to believe exactly what Jesus said.

When men want to read and understand the will of God, they can. Jesus asked a lawyer what he read in the Law. When this lawyer responded, Jesus said, “Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live” (Lk. 10:25-28). When Herod wanted to know “where Christ should be born” it did not take the chief priest and scribes long to say “in Bethlehem of Judea” (Matt. 2:35). When men 16want to” understand God’s will, they can; when they don’t 94want to” they claim great difficulty. What they need is to get their “want to” in shape.

Matthew 19:9

Jesus said, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committed adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Matt. 19:9). This is where the battle has centered recently among brethren – on the faith.

In order to get away from what Jesus said, some brethren have said all kinds of things and taken all kinds of foolish positions.

1. Glen Lovelady said in his debate with J.T. Smith that this from the lips of Jesus was “an interpolation of copiest” (p. 23) being “an addition” (p. 172) then said “it shouldn’t be there” for “in 1611, forty-eight scholars added Matthew 19:9B” (p. 177).

2. Leroy Garrett said that Matthew “inserted that exception on his own, and that Jesus never said it” (Restoration Review, Nov., 1978, as quoted by Mike Willis in Truth Magazine, Vol. 23, p. 93).

3. Olan Hicks says that what truth brethren have taught from Matthew 19:9 through the years “comes from the Vatican” (What the Bible Says About Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage, p. 26), and that brethren “need to remove the glasses which have been provided for us by the Catholic Church” (p. 26). He further says in his debate with Jack Holt, “we are traditionist” (p. 9) having “re-written the Bible” (p. 21) and taking “sides with Satan” (p. 39, in his debate with Ray Hawk) with a “human theory” (p. 23) which “originated in human theology long after the Bible was written” (p. 14). Hicks redefines adultery saying “Jesus speaks of two acts, the doing of which is adultery. 1. Divorcing and 2. marrying another” (p. 18, debate with Holt).

4. Brother Homer Hailey says “Adultery was in breaking the marriage covenant and making another covenant to suit their pleasures” (p. 57, The Divorced and Remarried Who Would Come to God). 1, along with many others, am surprised at brother Hailey taking this position since the New Testament shows adultery is (1) an act (Jn. 8:4) committed in connection with a (2) bed (Rev. 2:22). Further, he said, “Matthew 19:3-9 is a part of the covenant that the Christian lives under, not the alien” (p. 59). Jesus said “whosoever” (Matt. 19:9). Of “whosoever” brother Hailey has said “whosoever indicates anyone” (The Minor Prophets, p. 55).

“Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” is not someone’s opinion. It is a part of “the faith” for which we are to earnestly contend (Jude 3) and that is exactly why this special issue has been prepared to contend for the faith. If there are some who do not like us contending for the faith, then they should cease pressing their erroneous personal opinions on this subject which are not taught in the New Testament.

Brethren, all any of us need is more faith to accept what Jesus said.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 1, pp. 25-26
January 2, 1992

By Clinton D. Hamilton

Sometimes a querist is concerned with an issue that has several aspects. Accordingly, a series of questions is expressed. Such is the case in this instance. Submitted below is the language of the querist in pinpointing the matters for consideration.

Questions:

“Please comment on 1 Corinthians 6:1, Acts 16:25 and Romans 13 as it pertains to the following situation:

Husband and wife are having marriage problems. They have spoken with brethren about the problem. The husband abuses the wife. She calls the police. She gets a restraining order to protect herself.

Question 1: Should she have gone through the Matthew 18:15-18 process?

Question 2: Was she violating 1 Corinthians 6:1 or was she appealing to Civil Government as Paul did in Acts 22:25?

Question 3: When would it be proper for two brethren to appeal to Civil Government as it is ordained of God in Romans 13?

Question 4: How do you determine whether a matter is for the Church to decide or the civil government to decide? If Civil law is broken (wife beating) is that a civil matter?

If a husband and wife cannot work out their differences, should 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 apply? If I understand this passage, it allows for divorce but not remarriage as fornication is not involved.”

Response:

In this response, the description of the situation by the querist should be kept in mind.

Question 1: If a brother sins against another brother, then the second brother is to speak to him between the two alone in order to seek to remediate the situation. If he does not hear in the sense of being responsive to correct the relationship then the second brother is to contact one or two more brethren to accompany him to discuss the issue with the sinning brother. Given the situation in which the sinning brother still does not yield to these exhortations, then the brother wronged is to present the matter to the church or assembly. Failing to effect a change by all these efforts, the sinner is to be as a gentile and the tax-collector. So is the teaching of Matthew 18:15-17.

A wife being abused by a husband who is a brother in the Lord should certainly seek to follow the Lord’s instruction in Matthew 18:15-17. Brethren, directed by the Lord, are certainly more qualified to point out the Lord’s way to each party. The principles and instruction of 1 Corinthians 6:1-11 demonstrate when this course of action is appropriate. It is entirely possible, however, that one may not respond to God’s plan for resolving the problem.

Civil government is authorized by God for this purpose: to punish the evil-doer and to praise them that do well (Rom. 13:3-4; 1 Pet. 2:13-15). Accordingly, Christians have the obligation to pay taxes in order that the civil ruler may attend to the work God ordained that he should do (Rom. 13:1-2,5-7). A Christian whose husband abuses her and refuses to hear the brethren in the matter of amending his ways would properly appeal to the civil government for punishment of the evil doer under civil law. She is to be protected or praised for her well doing. Therefore, civil government should fulfill its God-ordained role as set forth above.

A Christian calling on civil government in this instance is not in violation of Matthew 18 or 1 Corinthians 6 because she followed the proper course, as set forth in the preceding response, in seeking to bring about an amendment in the abusive husband’s conduct. Civil government’s ordained role is not antithetical to the kingdom of God. Its role, however, may be corrupted to put it in opposition to right and good.

Question 2: Paul’s appeal to his status as a Roman citizen in Acts 16:37 and 22:25 is not parallel to the situation described concerning which this question is directed. He was not abused by a brother. He did call on civil government to perform its God-ordained role. As a Roman citizen he had certain rights under Roman law, which law was consistent with the law of Christ. He appealed for the application of those rights to his situation.

If the abused spouse followed Matthew 18:15-17, prior to calling on civil government, she did not violate 1 Corinthians 6:1. She sought to effect a resolution through brethren rather than going before civil law. However, as a citizen she has certain rights that can only be enforced by the properly God-ordained agent. The abusive husband as described above refused to yield to brethren. The matter then passes to the realm of civil government.

Question 3: When brethren follow 1 Corinthians 6:1ff and in the particular case (personal sin against one) as set forth in Matthew 18:15-17, and a civil issue is involved, i.e. violation of a specific law, brethren can appeal to civil government. Let us look at this situation: A Christian’s spouse commits adultery and every effort is made by the other spouse and brethren brought into the matter but with a failure of the sinner to repent, the innocent spouse seeks to put the offending spouse away. In this case, appeal would be made to civil government for a legal divorce. In this instance, a Christian could appeal to civil government. The remedy sought conforms to the law of God as articulated by Jesus.

In the case of a dispute over a contract issue between brethren, and there is no resolution between them and among other brethren, then the dispute could be submitted to civil government. Contract law is rather minutely detailed by most well developed societies.

If an issue has been resolved by brethren between and among themselves there may be needed a legal declaration on the matter. In this event, brethren could go to civil government for the needed declaration. Government operating as God decreed is not antithetical to righteousness.

Question 4: The nature of the issue must be clearly defined and Scripture dealing with it would have to be applied. The Scripture’s context, language, and corroborative passages, if any, would need to be assessed for applicability. If through persuasive appeals from the gospel made to the wrong doer are devoid of the desired end, and if a specific, civil right is involved to which the Christian is entitled by both God and civil law, then an appeal can be made to civil government.

Crucial to this determination are a correct analysis of the issue at concern and a correct understanding and application of Scripture to it. There are instances when a brother, through a correct application of 1 Corinthians 6, would take wrong and even be defrauded (1 Cor. 6:7). Some brethren might use civil government to seek to defraud another brother (1 Cor. 6:8). In this instance appeal to civil government is prohibited.

There is yet another question posed by the querist in his final paragraph. The question centers on 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 as applied to the situation described by the querist.

The instruction given in the passage is for a Christian who is a wife not to depart from her husband and likewise the same instruction is given to a husband not to depart from his wife. If one’s companion does depart, no adultery being present, then they are to remain unmarried. In the event a Christian is married to an unbeliever and the unbeliever departs, then the believer has no obligation or bondage to provide for the one who departed.

It is obvious from this passage that it is possible for a spouse to live apart, remaining unmarried, in irreconcilable conditions. The principle is clearly enunciated.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 2, pp. 41-42
January 16, 1992